Talk:Liberty Tower (Manhattan)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ovinus Real (talk · contribs) 09:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Immediate failure criteria

1. Approved Article looks pretty good on a cursory look.
2. Approved All images are CC by SA or Public Domain, and the copyvio detector found nothing.
3. Approved Looks good.
4. Approved
5. N/A

Shall move onto the full review! Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 1

1a. Needs some minor work

1b. Needs some minor work

Here are some things I noted. Feel free to just mark the things you've done with Y or, if you disagree, leave a comment as to why you didn't want to make the change so we can discuss. I don't feel strongly about all these changes, of course.

0. Lead

• Move "at 55 Liberty Street at the corner of Naussau Street" to later in the first paragraph; I don't think it belongs in the very first sentence
  •  Done
• "Federal Reserve Bank of New York Building" -> "Federal... York" or "headquarters of the Federal... York". Makes the sentence a bit less confusing to me and makes the importance of this building clear
  •  Done, except I went with "Federal Reserve Bank of New York headquarters". epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• "by the Sinclair Oil Company" -> "by Sinclair Oil" or make Company part of the link
  •  Done
• "to plans by" -> "designed"; the original phrasing is a bit confusing. I might be misunderstanding this
  •  Done
• Remove the second link to NYC in the lead
  • There is only one link to NYC. The other one is a link to New York City designated landmark, which isn't previously linked.

1. Site

• Note: the second usage of Federal Reserve... Building is fine, imo

2. Design

• "had intended the Liberty Tower as" -> "intended the Liberty Tower to be" a bit simpler
  •  Done
• "contains a facade" -> "has a facade" I'm not sure if the side of a building can "contain" a facade, but maybe this is building jargon I'm unfamiliar with
  •  Done Either one is technically fine - it's not particularly jargon, but it does sound a bit strange. epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• "floor-to-area ratio" -> "floor area ratio", or change the earlier usage to make it consistent. Honestly I prefer the hyphenated version because of its clarity
  •  Done
• "main elevation" -> "main elevation (side view)" I don't feel too strongly about this, but given that you can't hover over the link to get a definition (because it's a redirect to a section in another article), I think this would be helpful for non-building aficionados (like me!)
  • This actually does change the definition of the term, though. An elevation is the technical term for a side of the building, and the Liberty Street elevation is the main side of the building. epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Maybe rename the section "Facade" to "Facades"? I've never seen it being used as an uncountable noun, but maybe that's more unfamiliar jargon :P
  • In this case, this is a specialized use of the term - the facade refers to the entire exterior of the building. This is done in other articles as well. epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Add link for "pinnacle"
  •  Done
• "exceptions. The" -> "exceptions: the"
  •  Done
• Add link for "dormer"
  •  Done
• Comment: The description in Facade is really thorough and well done!
  • Thanks! epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• "caissons that were sunk" -> "caissons sunk"
  •  Done
• "Above the caissons were" -> "...caissons are"
  •  Done
• "thick, reinforced" -> "thick, and reinforced" or "thick and reinforced"
  •  Done
• "twenty-four columns" -> "24 columns" for consistency
  •  Done
• In that sentence containing the previous comment, you can use commas instead of semicolons
  •  Done
• In section Features: you seem to use a mixture of past and present tense. I think present tense makes more sense, otherwise it sounds like the superstructure is no longer fireproof and that there are no longer five passenger elevators (though if the latter is true, do clarify that the number has changed)
  •  Done I wrote the section at different times of the day, hence the inconsistency. The number of elevators hasn't changed, to my knowledge. epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah, there are still 5 elevators in the building. epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• "Post, which occupied" -> "Post; they occupied" or "Post; the Post occupied" because "which" is a bit ambiguous
  •  Fixed
• "co-op" -> "cooperative"
  •  Done
• "tapering of the roof" -> "roof's taper"
  •  Done

3. History

• "Prior to the ... 1875," -> "Between 1853 and 1875–prior to the Liberty Tower's construction–" a bit easier to understand
  •  Done
• "after Bryant" I think you should spell out his full name again
  •  Done
• "as-yet-unnamed" -> "not-yet-named" The original word is a bit unwieldy, though it might even be better to restructure the phrase
  •  Done
• "to be erected" -> "which was to be erected" Otherwise it sounds like the plans themselves are being constructed
  •  Done
• "work was commenced" -> "work commenced"
  •  Done
• "that October" -> "October" or "October 1909" I think it is clear from this context
  •  Done
• "was also simultaneously" -> "was simultaneously" redundant
  •  Done
• "The plot was" -> "It was"
  •  Done
• "cryptographers, the" -> "cryptographers, known as the"
  •  Done
• "up-front" -> "up front"
  •  Done

4. Critical reception

• "a critic" -> "an unnamed critic" Because an unnamed critic probably has less accountability
  •  Done
• Later "The unnamed critic" -> "They"
  •  Done

Overall, the prose is in really great shape! It was quite enjoyable and interesting to read, actually. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 2

• Perhaps you could clarify how many stories it has in the Design section? I'm a little confused, are there 33 or 29 floors? What is the source of this discrepancy?
  • I'm not sure why this discrepancy exists, but it's very common in NYC skyscrapers, even with famous ones such as the Empire State Building. However, in this case, there are more than 29 stories visible on the facade. There are actually 30 stories to the top of the dormers, plus two additional stories with windows inside the sloping roof. I can't really go into the discrepancy without going into WP:SYNTH/WP:OR territory. The New York City Department of Buildings does say there are 33 stories, which is the number I'm going with. epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Y Very minor: citation to New-York Tribune shouldn't have a hyphen (I just went ahead and did it. 10:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)) Turns out the hyphen is correct. Ovinus (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The article is very well sourced, and the citations are all of high quality (with specified page numbers, too). All of the statements in the lead have corresponding cited information in the body. Really great work! Ovinus (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 3

The article is quite broad, and while the information in Design is quite detailed, I also think it is quite interesting, because it explains the construction of a building with an extra narrow floor-to-area ratio, which involved some unusual features.

I might add some information about modern usage of the building. I know it's now just a residential building, but maybe some information on its average occupancy and carrying capacity would be pertinent. As I mentioned earlier in the review, I would also clarify the status of the building's five elevators. Are they still there? Are there more or less?

• I'll try to do this. Details on modern use are pretty few and far between, even in databases. Average occupancy may be a bit too detailed for this article, probably because it rises and falls with the housing market in NYC. I'll see if I can get planning documents for this building. epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 4

Nothing that controversial about a building. The Teapot Dome scandal is neutrally mentioned in passing.

Criterion 5

The article is stable. Most of its content was added recently by the nominator.

Criterion 6

The article is well-illustrated, and the images are properly attributed as I noted earlier. A google search didn't reveal any images of the building during construction.

Really well done Epicgenius! I'm no expert on featured articles but I think with a bit of trimming in the Design section and more info about modern usage, this could be an FA. I'll take another look at it after you've responded to my comments above. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ovinus Real: Thanks for the comprehensive review. I've responded to these comments now. At the current moment I think this would be fine as a GA, but I appreciate your extensive comments. epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Everything looks good. Ping me when you're done with finding any relevant info about modern usage, I'll take a look at what you've added (if any) and then pass the nomination. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Ovinus Real, thanks. I didn't really find any other info about modern usage that wasn't mentioned in the article already, but I did add mention of a few other sales of the building. epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Your additions all look good. Sorry to send you looking. I shall pass the nomination. Again, awesome work! Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)